"It Just Keeps Running and Running"

Bedlam
And no, don't think he'd be building a quantum effects mechanical clock.

I was thinking in terms of his mechanical ability being used to utilize the ether, which does exist, in the form of a gaseous (as Tesla called
it) or dynamic, rather than a solid, (as Hertz thought it was) ether.

Well, no, it doesn't exist. Not only is there no proof for it, the LCD you're reading this on stands as a testimony to its absence. If EM traveled
through a medium the way sound does through water, it would be longitudinal. It's not.

Tesla's discovery is not electromagnetic or electrodynamic; it's electrostatic, or better: electromechanical.

The waves travel at the speed of light.

EM waves can't travel in free space; they can only travel through solid substances.

Einstein and Hertz believed in a solid ether; only a solid ether could conduct EM waves.

Tesla believed in a gaseous ether.

Tesla's waves are similar to sound waves, which travel in the atmosphere. The differences are that Tesla's waves travel at the speed of light, and
instead of using the atmosphere, they use the ether, which is sub-atomic.

Mary Rose
Here are things I heard in the second hour:

The energy of light is being carried by the ether.

Light itself isn't travelling anywhere; there are no particles moving through space.

Light is basically a standing wave form in the ether.

This energy collides with solid bodies to produce reactions such as heat and reflection of other wavelengths.

Radio science today still is actually producing "sound waves in the ether" but the technology does not produce the pure sounds it could if it were
based on Tesla's gaseous ether theory instead of Hertz's solid ether theory.

After reading up on the definition of "momentum" I find it lacking. It does not explain the why. When the arrow leaves the bow, why should it
continue at all. With forces pressing it all around on every side it should come to a sudden and complete stop, yet it does not.

We know that air is not rushing in to push the arrow from behind, but something is happening in the arrow to make it continue on it's journey. Let's
exchange the arrow for a sleek narrow boat that has a point at the front and is flat at the rear. We set it in the water and then give it a push. We
can see that the front of the boat is displacing water and that it quickly rushes into the rear of the boat to replace that displacement.

What we have is that when any force or pressure is applied into any mass it will cause a direction of motion away from that pressure. As the mass
object moves away from the source of pressure, the energy applied will slowly be reabsorbed into the surrounding area outside of it's mass. The
object then comes to a stop with pressure at all sides and angles being equal.

What is not seen is that this is possible because of a field of force energy that is much like the water I described above, except that it is
everywhere and in everything in the universe. Some say it's like a gas, and others like a liquid, but since science cannot define it they ignore it.
It is called the aether and like the water, an object moving in it causes displacement and this is the reason for continued motion until balance is
once again achieved. The pressure behind the object being greater at the start slowly loses that greater pressure until the pressure forward and
behind are the same at then the mass object stops moving.

The definition of momentum is lacking because while it can explain what is happening it cannot reasonably explain why it should be happening.

Again you are right. Light is not "traveling" anywhere. It is vibrating and that vibration is what is seemingly doing the traveling through the
aether. This is why Tesla said to thing of energy as "vibration and frequency." Once this thought is fully grasped it is easier to understand
"how" the universe works and moves. Otherwise it should not be doing anything and nothing at all.

The largest vibration of them all was the "big bang" which we know was expansion. And expansion fits perfectly with the aether theory. In fact, the
universe is still not done expanding even today.

ErosA433
So it is good to dream and say what if! but if what if is essentially magic even by realistic models, it is not really helpful to the progress of
science and life.

It isn't magic if it's a phenomenon that is simply not understood by all and is used in a new concept.

The proper attitude to take is neutral when there is reason to believe something could be real.

Those who have an understanding of the suppression endured by inventors over the decades have an advantage over those who don't because it puts
things in perspective.

Again this is incorrect, it is like saying that... If i believe that magic is possible that I can say... levitate a cup of tea above the table, using
the power of my mind. That because scientists say that is impossible (based on lets just face it, so much evidence that it is not possible) that oh
because they looked at the evidence and made the call, that they are wrong because they have to be neutral regardless of supporting data?

You do know that that is quite frankly way out into the darkness of 'outside of the box' thinking. I mean the way some people talk about Tesla is
akin to how people talk about Jesus... Its most likely that Tesla didn't actually understand at all what he was doing, but hey because he wrote a few
things down and you guys can find a few interesting quotes, probably the thinking out loud ramblings of an inventor with a great great story... it
means it has to be true!

We live in an era were information is moving around quite freely. And it becomes a time when the "Dog ate my homework" excuse now has even less
credibility than ever before.

Also the phrase... enormous energy quanta doesn't really make a lot of sense since a quanta is by definition the smallest 'packet' a physical
entity, in this case i can assume that would be energy... So then that means large smallest energy packet... A great example of what Im going to start
calling... word salad.

The obvious existence of UFOs is not as obvious as their actual nature. Besides, everyone carries with them a camera these days and the amount of
actual evidence that is credible is really not increased at the same rate.

And besides, apparent suppression of UFO subject material does not necessarily have any causal value with what is being discussed here. It is not an
absolute means to an end, but more over a logical plausibility but no reason to be the case

The big bang is defined as an expansion OF space, not IN space. So what you suggest is that this field exited both without physical space before and
was not perturbed by it as physical space expanded through it.

ErosA433
The obvious existence of UFOs is not as obvious as their actual nature. Besides, everyone carries with them a camera these days and the amount of
actual evidence that is credible is really not increased at the same rate.

It only takes one valid one to prove a point.

Their actual nature is obviously not explained in mainstream science and that is the point.

ErosA433
And besides, apparent suppression of UFO subject material does not necessarily have any causal value with what is being discussed here.

We don't know that.

Again, the proper stance to take if you have an open, scientific, inquisitive mind is neutral.

One should be gathering more information. One should try to find out more about this device.

Thank you... now, what you are saying is that a point can be proven by ONE valid piece of evidence... Now accept the many valid pieces of evidence
that most of what you have posted on this thread is incorrect and has been proven INVALID over and over and over.

There are so many things explained by mainstream science, and it is a field who's horizons are expanding every day. What you claim is patently false
that the main stream cannot explain anything. There are only a couple of UFO videos that I have ever found interesting, and believe me, iv looked at
many hundreds.

I mean come on, there was a 12 page thread about a fleet of UFOs recorded on someones security camera... It was so obviously the night sky moving as
is natural. But no, no people are so ignorant that they just suck it all up like sheep. All the stuff about spacecraft around the sun, its just so
laughable because every coverup they claim and the great big NASA covering everything up is just garbage. anyone who has done any even basic data
analysis using the types of devices used, know that what is being observed is anything BUT unknown.

ErosA433
Thank you... now, what you are saying is that a point can be proven by ONE valid piece of evidence... Now accept the many valid pieces of evidence
that most of what you have posted on this thread is incorrect and has been proven INVALID over and over and over.

You are twisting what I've said.

It only takes one valid UFO to prove the fact that the powers that be are suppressing science and technology.

The device on this thread is a topic that is worth discussing with a neutral stance and attitude.

I really wish it were true. It would have to violate the known laws of Physics, though.

As soon as he puts a load on the shaft to produce power enough to turn a generator that gets more energy out than is put in, let me know.

Don't forget that "law" is a misnomer and people misconceive it as such. Laws of physics are more like "habits" or "trends" of physics. We
only know that, out of the trillion times we've observed _____, the reaction has been ______ for about a trillion times therefore we can safely
assume _____ will happen when we do ______. Science is just observation and you can't ignore new observations based on previous ones. That would be
unscientific.

In this case, if he does put a load on the shaft and it produces a surplus of power, it won't stop working simply because somebody says it can't.

Well twisting maybe, but that was also intentional, since the way that the alternative tends to work is that Science can put forward oooooodles of
valid evidence and people of the alternative just say "No, not valid, i don't believe it"

The alternative puts forward one piece of evidence (usually anecdotal) to which they cannot produce any actual raw physical proof or even a device
that does what they say it does. But that is ok? right?

That is the point of what i was going. It is like one rule for one and one rule for the other.

Mary Rose
The problem with mainstream physics and those who defend it is the arrogance.

Physics and science in general should just be physics and science. There shouldn't be classifications of them.

Arbitrageur
So if someone makes a scientific theory today that arrows move because air pushes them, how do you propose we treat that theory, when we can prove it
wrong?

Mary did you ever answer this? How should science treat theories that have been proven wrong?

ErosA433
That is the point of what i was going. It is like one rule for one and one rule for the other.

Science isn't like that... it is the same rules for all

The example of plate tectonics comes to mind. Scientists rejected the idea because
there was insufficient evidence to support it. When sufficient supporting evidence was presented, the same scientists accepted the same theory they
previously rejected. As previously stated this is the means by which any "alternative science" can become science...just provide sufficient evidence
as the proponents of plate tectonics did.

However for every 100 alternative science theories I've seen on ATS, about 99 of them can be proven wrong with evidence already known. There is that
small percentage of theories that present science doesn't contradict, which may or may not be proven someday with additional evidence. I made a
thread about such a hypothesis here. Like host hypotheses not in the mainstream, it's
probably wrong, but the authors at least provide specific observational evidence that could be collected to support the hypothesis, or falsify it.

We know that air is not rushing in to push the arrow from behind, but something is happening in the arrow to make it continue on it's journey. Let's
exchange the arrow for a sleek narrow boat that has a point at the front and is flat at the rear. We set it in the water and then give it a push. We
can see that the front of the boat is displacing water and that it quickly rushes into the rear of the boat to replace that displacement.

What we have is that when any force or pressure is applied into any mass it will cause a direction of motion away from that pressure. As the mass
object moves away from the source of pressure, the energy applied will slowly be reabsorbed into the surrounding area outside of it's mass. The
object then comes to a stop with pressure at all sides and angles being equal.

Yes this is what typically happens on Earth, which is why the
ancients thought something had to be pushing the arrow, because as you said, observations seemed to suggest that things only kept moving if something
was pushing them. So you can sort of understand why they might try to think of something pushing the arrow.

It's harder for me to understand why you might be thinking it in the era of spaceflight. Voyager and pioneer probes continue to move out of our solar
system with nothing pushing them past the initial push (and some gravitational assists from encounters with planets). The "why" seems fairly
straightforward; all the frictional forces we usually observe on Earth have been reduced to be insignificant. So if there's no resistance to motion
the motion will continue.

I'm not sure it makes sense to ask "why" an object has momentum, because I would ask, why shouldn't it have momentum? But if you don't believe
there is a satisfactory answer to either of those questions, you can at least acknowledge that interplanetary spacecraft have been pretty successful
using our existing equations of motion and understanding, which seems to suggest to me that if we are missing something in our equations, it can't be
much. In this case it seems reasonable to accept the concept of momentum as a useful model simply because it matches observation exceedingly well, as
does the concept of friction in your example about why the boat slows down. If you say it's more than just simple friction, yes there is a whole
science about the way fluids flow around objects used by aircraft and boat designers. We understand these flows well enough now to be able to test 3D
computer models in virtual wind tunnels, before we even build prototypes to test in real wind tunnels.

This is pretty amazing stuff that we weren't able to do before we had powerful computers. I don't see how you can study this topic and then claim we
still don't understand it (we haven't perfected it mind you, but part of this reason is we still can't model each and every molecule in a
simulation, which would take more computer power than we have and we can get close to actual results without doing that):

Computational fluid dynamics, usually abbreviated as CFD, is a branch of fluid mechanics that uses numerical methods and algorithms to solve and
analyze problems that involve fluid flows. Computers are used to perform the calculations required to simulate the interaction of liquids and gases
with surfaces defined by boundary conditions. With high-speed supercomputers, better solutions can be achieved. Ongoing research yields software that
improves the accuracy and speed of complex simulation scenarios such as transonic or turbulent flows. Initial experimental validation of such software
is performed using a wind tunnel with the final validation coming in full-scale testing, e.g. flight tests.

We can model what would happen to your
hypothetical boat in a computer simulation. Doesn't this show a pretty good understanding of what is going on in that example?

Mary Rose
Physics and science in general should just be physics and science. There shouldn't be classifications of them.

The problem is that you are asking for something that has become totally unfeasible. A physics degree takes typically 3 years, ontop of that a masters
will take 1-2 years, ontop of that a phd can take 4 - 6 years. What you are saying is that (if i am understanding correct) that to be a physicist you
need to understand at PhD level every aspect of the subject.

If you will allow someone to do that they will be in the field permanently till they die, What you are suggesting is that we go backwards not
forwards. Gone are the days where science was a play hobby of the sons of the rich and powerful. What we do is focus on a area of interest. For me, my
area of interest was Particle physics by the time I had completed a Masters in Physics and Astronomy. So Particle physics, if i am to be an expert in
all areas of just particle physics alone that means the following... (to name a few)

Now, Iv done courses or taught myself nearly all of these, and that is what a graduate student has to do, become good at assimilating knowledge. What
is strange about this is the contradiction... you say physics should be physics only... but you are begrudging people for the knowledge they have
tried to gain. While at the same time, accepting theories from people that actually have no real education... or a fraudulent ones (sometimes) over
that of people who's education path is quite easy to see.

ErosA433
The problem is that you are asking for something that has become totally unfeasible. A physics degree takes typically 3 years, ontop of that a masters
will take 1-2 years, ontop of that a phd can take 4 - 6 years. What you are saying is that (if i am understanding correct) that to be a physicist you
need to understand at PhD level every aspect of the subject.

My understanding was different, that "theories" like those of a relatively
uneducated person like Ed Leedskalnin claiming the moon is held in orbit by magnetic force and would come crashing down to Earth if the Earth and moon
didn't both have opposing, unchanging, dipolar magnetic fields should not be considered "alternative science"; it should just be considered a
scientific theory along with other scientific theories like the one that says gravity and inertia are responsible for the moon's orbit, without
labeling it "alternative science" and without ridiculing it with such terms as "crackpottery".

This of course is not my view, but my interpretation of what Mary Rose was proposing, but hopefully she can clarify if this is what she
meant.

Ah I see, then sure that is fine, but the problem then arises that these theories are outright incorrect, and placing them side by side with theories
with far greater wealth of proof seems somewhat odd.

It is like putting a 286 next to a i7 and saying "well they are both awesome" sure, they are both computers and back in their time yes they were
awesome, but in todays age, why use a 286? It is wasteful to just throw it away but in essence people should be able to see and be educated enough to
see that what is required for these theories to work just isn't observed or supported in any way shape or form.

Arbitrageur
Mary did you ever answer this? How should science treat theories that have been proven wrong?

Any time you say something has been proven wrong you are stating what you believe to be true from the information you have.

My issue is that there is suppression of inventors and scientific and technological information and as long as that is the case, it is impossible to
have a full picture from which to judge.

Besides the suppression used by powerful people to protect their vested interests, there is the use of ridicule by ordinary people who I classify as
minions of the powers that be. Minions are people who have invested their time, effort, money, and ego into a university education - which is largely
controlled by those powers that be - and they don't want the perceived value of that education diminished. So they're content to use the fallacy of
ridicule, which only helps the powers that be keep things the way they are.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.